Arias

Arias v. Raimondo

Good Law
860 F.3d 1185·2017 WL 2676771·27 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 614·27 Wage Hour & Leave Rep. (BNA) 614·2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11074
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 22, 2017No. 15-16120California2,128 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Trott, J.

Can an employer’s attorney be held liable for retaliating against his client’s employee because the employee sued his client for violations of workplace laws? The district court’s answer was no. We respectfully disagree.

We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse and remand.

I

Background

In 1995, plaintiff José Arnulfo Arias went to work as a milker for Angelo Dairy. Three Angelos owned and operated the dairy: Luis, Maria, and Joe (“Angelos”). When the Angelos hired Arias, they did *1187 not complete and file a Form 1-9 (“1-9”) regarding his employment eligibility in the United States.

An 1-9 is a document required by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), a component of our Department of Homeland Security. USCIS explains the purpose of the 1-9 and process as follows:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, https://www.uscis.gov/i-9 (last updated Jan. 23, 2017).

Instead of complying with federal law, the Angelos wielded it as a weapon to confine Arias in their employ. When Arias informed Luis Angelo in 1997 that he had been offered a position with another…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.